Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

"C. J. Clegg" wrote in message
news

Looking for the best all-tube general-coverage (0.5-30) receiver I can
get.

Need good operation on SSB and CW and capability on AM, along with
sensitivity, stability, ruggedness, and availability of replacement parts
e.g. tubes (that last one might be difficult...).

I'm thinking Collins 51Jx or R-390, although I remember that I really
liked an old Hammarlund I had once...

Would like to stay under $1000 but if I had to I suppose I could go as
high as $2000 for something that's really mint.

What do you guys recommend I look for?

Have a look on ebay for a RACAL RA17 , they tend to go cheaply as there are
so many about. No problem with replacement valves.

Steve H
G0LMV

Steve,
You're asking the Ford vs. Chevy question...and everyone will have their
favorite. There may not be one answer, at all. Given the top price
you're willing to pay, you can have, arguably, any receiver you want
that might be available. Your broad spec could be met by a myriad of
receivers. Entering the Ford vs. Chevy argument, I'd recommend the
Collins 51J4 or the R-390A. Cheaper but entirely usable would be the
Hammarlund HQ-180AC. There are many, more esoteric, radios that can be
had up to $2000, to be sure. You did mention, however, the implied
ability to repair and maintain. Beware of equipment that is beyond a
reasonable hope of home or local repair. For example, many excellent and
modern receivers, especially military or high-end commercial, either
require a depot repair environment or parts and modules that are
virtually "unobtanium". What's not been said is what you really want
to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious
collecting? Maybe you could pass on more details about your
requirements? And, which side of the pond are you on? de Jeep/K3HVG

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote:

What's not been said is what you really want
to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious
collecting?

Good evening, Jeep.

Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter.

I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside
the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm
not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that
would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few
minutes of thought. :-)

The main reason I want old and all tubes and etc. is something I hesitate
to mention, because every time I do, I get ridiculed as a Chicken Little
and a paranoid (though, as we all know, it ain't paranoia if the
sonsabitches really are out to get you!).

I firmly believe, in my heart of hearts, that sooner rather than later the
United States (which, to answer your other question, is the side of the
pond I'm on) will receive one or more nuclear attacks.

It could be a 10-kiloton device that gets smuggled into downtown
Washington in the back of an SUV, or it could be a Jericho-style
widespread attack, or anything in between.

When that happens, much of the solid state gear (radios, computers, cell
phones, the Internet, packet BBSs, etc.) within a fairly large radius of
ground zero will be reduced to doorstops and paperweights.

Assuming I'm still around after the attack, and since I'm within
reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up
at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving
that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted,
shouldn't cost too much.

Of course, that begs the question of how I'm going to power the damn thing
if commercial power is down, but I guess I'll have to, as they say, jump
off of that bridge when I come to it.

Anyway, I really do like the old gear, and though I'll almost certainly
never be a serious collector, I wouldn't mind having, up and running, a
few quality pieces from back in the day.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:12:51 -0500, "C. J. Clegg" wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote:

What's not been said is what you really want
to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious
collecting?

Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter.

snip

reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up
at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving
that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted,
shouldn't cost too much.

This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that
you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a
future in which everything glows in the dark for a while.

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

73's, but geez...

Dale
KJ7SL

Obviously he'll be talking to those parts of the country that have not
been hit & to others who are well prepared in his region. In such a
post disaster scenario, communications will be vital & could
potentially save many lives.

He's being courageous, practical & toughtful.

What's "disappointing" about that? Why would you give him with the
qualified 73? Both comments say more about you than him.

Terry
W8EJO



This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that
you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a
future in which everything glows in the dark for a while.

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

73's, but geez...

Dale
KJ7SL

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 03:29:32 -0800, Dale wrote:

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

Beats me. Not my job. All I can do is try to be prepared myself, in some
minor sort of a way.

On 1/8/07 3:29 AM, in article ,
"Dale" wrote:

On Mon, 08 Jan 2007 00:12:51 -0500, "C. J. Clegg" wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jan 2007 08:49:06 -0500, K3HVG wrote:

What's not been said is what you really want
to do with the gear. Is it simple short-wave listening or serious
collecting?

Technically, it's neither, but it's more the former than the latter.

snip

reasonable EMP distance of a few large cities, I would like to have set up
at least a basic communications capability that has a chance of surviving
that. A really good receiver is a first step that, as you all have noted,
shouldn't cost too much.

This is disappointing. I was expecting you to say something like that
you prefer radios that glow in the dark. But you're preparing for a
future in which everything glows in the dark for a while.

OK, you've got your tube rigs, and found a way to power them (maybe
a steam-powered generator fueled by the corpses?). Who do you plan to
listen / talk to, and why? Are they making preparations as well?

73's, but geez...

Dale
KJ7SL


On the Beach. Good book and movie.

C. J. Clegg wrote:
I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside
the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm
not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that
would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few
minutes of thought. :-)

Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good
as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard
State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier
to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use.

When that happens, much of the solid state gear (radios, computers, cell
phones, the Internet, packet BBSs, etc.) within a fairly large radius of
ground zero will be reduced to doorstops and paperweights.

Note that a lot of the newer solid-state military gear was designed with
EMP-hardening in mind. You can look for something like the Trans-World
sets (which replaced the KWM-2 at embassies) for example.

Of course, that begs the question of how I'm going to power the damn thing
if commercial power is down, but I guess I'll have to, as they say, jump
off of that bridge when I come to it.

I would worry more about long-term maintenance. The R-390A is a wonderful
rig and a great performer but I would not want to have to work on one.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Scott Dorsey wrote:
C. J. Clegg wrote:
I need something that can be used on certain military HF networks outside
the amateur bands. I have been told that (for some goofball reason) I'm
not allowed to say exactly which networks, but it isn't anything that
would be particularly hard to guess if anyone cared to give it a few
minutes of thought. :-)

Skip the receiver and get a KWM-2. Receive performance is not as good
as the R-390, but it will work fine out of band (they used to be the standard
State Department issue rigs at foreign embassies) and they are a lot easier
to work on. Also, it's a lot more convenient to use.

Yes, it is, but it has a point contact diode balanced modulator/demodulator.
EMP would kill one in a heartbeat.

-Chuck